LAWS(MAD)-1967-9-30

MADRASAI NUSRATHUL ISLAM TRUST, BY MANAGING TRUSTEE M.A. MD. ISMAIL Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

Decided On September 26, 1967
Madrasai Nusrathul Islam Trust, By Managing Trustee M.A. Md. Ismail Appellant
V/S
The State Of Madras, Represented By The Accommodation Controller Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the necessity has arisen to interpret the provisions of Section 3 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in regard to a part of it, introduced for the first time in 1960, and for whose interpretation there is no clear authority. The circumstances have arisen in the following way.

(2.) THE petitioner is a trust, and premises No. 12, Muthucattan Street, Periamet, Madras, belongs to the trust. The last tenant of the premises was one Gaughan, who vacated it on 12th August, 1963. Section 3 CO (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Madras Act XVIII of 1960) hereinafter called the Act, makes it obligatory that every landlord shall, within 7 days after the building becomes vacant, by the termination of tenancy, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the officer authorised in that behalf by the Government, which, in this case, is the Accommodation Controller, the respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioner gave his report of vacancy on 14th August, 1963. On 19th August, 1963, the Accommodation Controller called for some particulars, and which also the petitioners supplied on 21st August, 1963. On 22nd August, 1963, the Accommodation Controller intimated to the petitioner, that an Inspector would inspect the premises, and the Inspector visited the premises, on 22nd August, 1963, and made a report that the roof of the kitchen and the passage had collapsed. Thereupon, the Accommodation Controller wrote a letter on 22nd August, 1963, to the petitioner saying:

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit as well as at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent -Accommodation Controller, has sought reliance on the second proviso to Section 3(5) of the Act, which is in the following terms: